From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #61 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Sunday, February 29 2004 Volume 04 : Number 061 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! [Phil Fleming ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! [Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040228/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_13 Sorry about the long url, but I don't know how anyone got those tinyurl addresses. Phil F. NP: Classic rock blaring out of my aunt's car speakers. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:25:29 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! Well, since it's been brought up here, I might as well add LoudFans to the people who are being asked this. (Replies offlist, of course). I know a lesbian who's very eager to marry her female partner. Also, she's anxious to marry her male slave, and is hoping that current events will allow her to fulfill her dream of doing both. This is no hypothetical slippery slope. This is an educated, professional woman who's anxiously following the court rulings in California. Personally, given those same current events, I can't explain to her why she shouldn't expect to be able to fulfill her vision of a loving marriage. I've talked to some fairly prominent gays in the movement, and they've all dodged the question. Typically, they just joke about how she should move to Utah. Anyway, I'm certainly interested in hearing how supporters of gay marriage would explain to this woman that she shouldn't be allowed to be married as she sees fit...if, in fact, anyone thinks so. (And, please, no comments based on how a slave can't be an equal partner. That'll just prompt long, droning discussions about the Submissive's Bill of Rights.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:44:29 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Well, since it's been brought up here, I might as well add LoudFans to the >people who are being asked this. (Replies offlist, of course). I know a lesbian >who's very eager to marry her female partner. Also, she's anxious to marry her >male slave, and is hoping that current events will allow her to fulfill her >dream of doing both. This is no hypothetical slippery slope. This is an >educated, professional woman who's anxiously following the court rulings in >California. Personally, given those same current events, I can't explain to her why she >shouldn't expect to be able to fulfill her vision of a loving marriage. I've >talked to some fairly prominent gays in the movement, and they've all dodged >the question. Typically, they just joke about how she should move to Utah. >Anyway, I'm certainly interested in hearing how supporters of gay marriage would >explain to this woman that she shouldn't be allowed to be married as she sees >fit...if, in fact, anyone thinks so. (And, please, no comments based on how a >slave can't be an equal partner. That'll just prompt long, droning discussions >about the Submissive's Bill of Rights.) > > > The simple, straightforward answer is that if she marries both, it's bigamy, regardless of anyone's sex. Unless she lives in a state that permits bigamy, she's going to have to choose. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:22:49 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! In a message dated 2/28/04 2:43:00 PM, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: > The simple, straightforward answer is that if she marries both, it's > bigamy, regardless of anyone's sex. Unless she lives in a state that > permits bigamy, she's going to have to choose. > But, of course, bigamy isn't legal in any state. It's illegal in most. And since gay marriage is illegal in California, why shouldn't this loving woman be able to turn to San Francisco? Offlist replies are probably still preferable. But speaking of gays, last year's Brett Smiley reissue on RPM is really great. Too short at about half an hour, but they didn't have much to work with. Actually, I have good reason to believe that Brett's bisexual at best, but I still almost passed it over because I thought it was a Marianne Faithfull album. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:55:35 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! Mebbe a little long-winded here in response to JRT, but hopefully not contentious. On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Jenny Grover wrote: > The simple, straightforward answer is that if she marries both, it's > bigamy, regardless of anyone's sex. Unless she lives in a state that > permits bigamy, she's going to have to choose. Yeah, but, the thinking goes, bigamy is currently, in many places neither more nor less against the law than gay marriage. What if people lobby to make it legal? The fear that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriages is one place where I don't think the standard anti-gay talking points are totally off base; one of the big arguments in favor of gay marriage is the line of thinking that goes "love is love; we don't pretend that gay relationships aren't really *there*, so they should have the same civil benefits as straight relationships". And this principle, of giving people supreme self-determination in their relationships but then according them societal benefits for it, does seem to point directly toward state recognition of polyamory. But then, we already do seem to buy into that principle, as a society. Look at just about anything else the state regulates -- driver's licenses, commercial zoning, tobacco sales -- and there's much, much more state meddling. If you forget about gay people for a minute, the state already lets people marry just about anyone they want, with very little hesitation. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't do so, only that it does. That's not the legal justification for gay marriage, though. I don't see an equal-protection argument getting very far in convincing a court that more than two people should be allowed to form one married unit. So as a question of direct consequences, I don't see the problem. I don't know if I think polygamous civil marriage is a good idea. I'm all for poly relationships, and I'd hate to think of someone with multiple life partners facing the kind of hospital-visitation nightmare that some gay couples go through, etc. But as a practical matter I don't know how the state would handle it; you'd need to be very, very careful not to provide incentives for business partners (or entire firms!) to get multi-married, and that might mean gutting some of the benefits of marriage as we know it now. I mean, there's nothing in particular preventing marriages of convenience now, except that you can only marry one person at once, and most people would rather save that slot for someone they want to, you know, actually marry. So basically, I won't buy the argument that gay marriage is going to lead to multiple marriage until I see a convincing argument that ANYTHING could lead to multiple marriage feasibly existing within our current legal system. And that there's a legal argument in favor of it. And that gay marriage has no foundation *except* the principle of personal autonomy. And so on... But is that what you were asking, JR, or was it just what people *thought* should happen with your friend? I wish her happiness and all, I just see neither how she could reasonably hope to get state recognition of her two relationships, nor how someone who thought she shouldn't have it would reasonably fear that she might. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:40:38 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! In a message dated 2/28/04 3:57:58 PM, aaron@eecs.harvard.edu writes: > But is that what you were asking, JR, or was it just what people *thought* > should happen with your friend? > I'm just trying to find a decent explanation for why this woman can't get married in the way that refleccts how she's chosen to love. It seems a little strange to bring up concerns about business partners (or entire firms!) rushing to get married for whatever reasons. I've never even heard that brought up in terms of a slippery slope. And just how judgmental is it for the courts to say that more than two people shouldn't be allowed to form one married unit? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:04:22 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:55:35 -0500 (EST), "Aaron Mandel" said: > Mebbe a little long-winded here in response to JRT, but hopefully not > contentious. > > The fear that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriages is one place > where I don't think the standard anti-gay talking points are totally off > base; one of the big arguments in favor of gay marriage is the line of > thinking that goes "love is love; we don't pretend that gay relationships > aren't really *there*, so they should have the same civil benefits as > straight relationships". And this principle, of giving people supreme > self-determination in their relationships but then according them > societal benefits for it, does seem to point directly toward state > recognition of polyamory. > I don't know if I think polygamous civil marriage is a good idea. I'm all > for poly relationships, and I'd hate to think of someone with multiple > life partners facing the kind of hospital-visitation nightmare that some > gay couples go through, etc. But as a practical matter I don't know how > the state would handle it; you'd need to be very, very careful not to > provide incentives for business partners (or entire firms!) to get > multi-married, and that might mean gutting some of the benefits of > marriage as we know it now. I mean, there's nothing in particular > preventing marriages of convenience now, except that you can only marry > one person at once, and most people would rather save that slot for > someone they want to, you know, actually marry. > Aaron said most of what I was going to say, and more, and more cogently. You might also see last week's "War Against Silence" for some of glenn's thoughts on the issue (including polyamory). I think the simple point is that partnerships of three+ raise new issues that are practical in nature rather than merely raising moral issues for some (as Aaron notes above), and so legalizing gay marriage does not lead in a straight line to legalizing any other such partnerships. The question, of course, is why government recognizes marriages at all. (I could imagine a hard-libertarian argument that individuals can live in whatever arrangements they choose, can contract among themselves however they want, and should not expect any particular benefit from government thereby, such arrangements being outside the proper purview of government in a libertarian mindset.) Presumably, the answer is that it sees some social benefit to people being married and therefore extends some benefits to the married, as incentive. That being the case, the question re polyamory would be: does it offer the same, equivalent, or greater social benefits? Of course, *ideal* reasons why government recognizes marriage are not necessarily the real reasons we as a society authorize government to recognize them. No doubt in addition to rational, legalistic reasoning, we also have emotional and moral/ethical reasons as well, which are not really codified in law but often underpin the law tacitly. Theorizin' on a sunny afternoon... - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:25:28 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: [loud-fans] All Night Radio I've been pretty obsessed with that All Night Radio song Jen Grover pointed us toward a week or so back - is the rest of the album comparable, or what? Because I'll simply have to buy it if so... - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:34:43 -0800 From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! > Yeah, but, the thinking goes, bigamy is currently, in many places neither > more nor less against the law than gay marriage. What if people lobby to > make it legal? I'll reply to the whole list, since I don't think this will be contentious. It's about polygamy, and its relation to the Mormon church... The polygamists in Utah have finally filed suit in federal court that Utah's law against polygamy is unconstitutional, and the basis of their legal claim is the supreme court's decision about sodomy in the Texas case. The dissenting opinion in that case (written by Scalia) argued (more or less as a reductio ad absurdum) that the majority's ruling would inevitably lead to the breakdown of a multitude of laws, including polygamy. So it's no surprise that the polygamists have decided to put that line of to a test. Utah (and indeed all the other states that have polygamists) have never enforced their polygamy (or bigamy) laws in much earnest. Mainly, I think, because enforcing them tends to make lives worse for everyone involved. You can't stop a man from having more than one woman living in his house and having children with all of them, so enforcing the laws really just means throwing all the parents into jail and sending the kids into foster care. The famous crackdown was in Short Creek, AZ, 1953 I think, where the gov't raided the polygamist town. The event generated terrible publicity for the governor around the entire country, and is still viewed as a terrible mistake. Interestingly, it's long been rumored that in Utah, yet another reason the government hasn't done much to stop polygamy is precisely because they were afraid that the laws wouldn't withstand a court challenge. This creates a curious problem for the Mormon church (the real, Salt Lake based Mormon church, not the fundamentalists). When the church officially stopped the practice of polygamy (in 1890), the canonized statement reads: "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise" (It would be interesting to see what the supreme court wrote in whatever decision is referenced here) Anyway, it says polygamy would be stopped, not because it was immoral, but because it was illegal. The fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy say that the Salt Lake church should have never given up God's will for the sake of obeying the laws, and broke with the Salt Lake church at that time. (Although, despite the official ban, Salt Lake leaders continued to perform polygamous marriages for about 15 years). If anti-polygamy laws were ruled *illegal*, then the justification that was given by the Mormons for stopping the practice would be eliminated. So what do the church leaders do then? If they allow polygamy, the church will be immediately marginalized to the fringe (after they've worked so hard to become mainstream), and I'd say easily more than half the members would leave the church. If they continue to deny polygamy, they have to find some way of digging themselves out of a giant theological hole created by many of the church's leaders (and founders) who said that not only was polygamy allowable, but it was in fact necessary to receive the highest blessing in heaven. Just some info from the list's resident "raised-Mormon-but-not-practicing-or-believing-whatsoever", - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:51:46 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] All Night Radio Fortissimo wrote: >I've been pretty obsessed with that All Night Radio song Jen Grover >pointed us toward a week or so back - is the rest of the album >comparable, or what? Because I'll simply have to buy it if so... >------------------------------- > >...Jeff > > Yes, it is. I highly recommend the album. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:26:34 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! Real nice, guys. I just raised that issue of how banning polygamy is more about practical natures than moral ones (like most of the country, we're preparing for tomorrow night's Gay Super Bowl over here), and got a fairly reasonable lecture about how nobody seems to mind the impracticalities when gays have extended families involving adopted children or stepchildren. In fact, those rights are often protected by law, while everyone seems to assume that "polygamous" partners (she's got a fairly good rationale for distancing herself from that word, incidentally) are always out to run some kind of scam. In fact, she notes that she's trying to take on added financial burdens. She might really be accurate about how bisexuals now have less rights than homosexuals, unless someone addresses her situation in the courts...although talking about "rights" is actually kind of off the topic. (Thanks to whoever posted that Utah info, though. She found that interesting.) As for the off-list suggestion that gay weddings emphasize a respect for monogamy: It seems she's quit taking comfort in how being ostracized helps other celebrate their own moral code. Speaking of California, that new Dramarama EP is kind of a disappointment. Won't give up on the forthcoming album, of course, but it's taken the edge off my enthusiasm. There's no Chris Carter, either. Of course, he doesn't need the money. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:02 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > I'm just trying to find a decent explanation for why this woman can't > get married in the way that refleccts how she's chosen to love. This seems sort of like asking why there's a sales tax, or any number of other laws. There are reasons to support or oppose it, but I'm not sure there's a reason it's THERE. > It seems a little strange to bring up concerns about business partners > (or entire firms!) rushing to get married for whatever reasons. I've > never even heard that brought up in terms of a slippery slope. I guess we hang out with different people, because I hear that one a lot. Forget the business thing, though, if you want. Instead, tell me what happens if three people (A, B and C) are all married, and A is also married to person X outside the group, who's married to person Y... and person Y is called to tesify in person B's trial. Do they have spousal privilege or not? What if there are ten links in the chain instead of two? It's not that this question is unanswerable, but it's not clear to me that it (and all the similar questions about taxes, or divorce...) can be answered on paper, ahead of time, in the abstract, in ways that make the system make sense. I'm open to arguments; I just haven't heard them. I'd like to be wrong about this. a ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:00:15 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > In fact, those rights are often protected by law, while everyone seems > to assume that "polygamous" partners (she's got a fairly good rationale > for distancing herself from that word, incidentally) are always out to > run some kind of scam. Geez, I didn't say that actual polyamorous people were untrustworthy. But you're right -- > In fact, she notes that she's trying to take on added financial burdens. If marriage between multiple people perforce involved the kind of sharing of property that happens under conventional marriage now, yeah, sham multi-marriages would be no more tempting than the two-person kind. That would not, however, encompass the range of relationships that people actually have. Still, I take back the thing about business; it's perhaps something that would have to be worried about in the implementation of poly marriage, but it's no reason to ditch the idea. > As for the off-list suggestion that gay weddings emphasize a respect for > monogamy: It seems she's quit taking comfort in how being ostracized > helps other celebrate their own moral code. Indeed. But as Jeff said, this makes it seem more like government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. a ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:03:08 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! In a message dated 2/28/04 7:38:28 PM, aaron@eecs.harvard.edu writes: > This seems sort of like asking why there's a sales tax, or any number of > other laws. There are reasons to support or oppose it, but I'm not sure > there's a reason it's THERE. > What's all this talk of laws? Those marriages in San Francisco are full of impracticalities (not the least of which is that they're illegal), and the recent Massachusetts ruling is another legal quagmire in the making. Is that still any reason to draw the line at this woman? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:33:15 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] The Grey Album (ns) Any Fabs fans have any opinions on The Grey Album? ( http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html ) I think it works better than it has any right to. Parts of it (eg. "Public Service Announcement", "December 4th") are almost touching. -d.w. [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:09:16 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Michael Mitton wrote: > I'll reply to the whole list, since I don't think this will be > contentious. It's about polygamy, and its relation to the Mormon church... For a more in-depth exploration of this issue, I recommend highly UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN by Jon Krakauer. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com np: MAROON - The Webb Bros. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:11:39 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news for some... heck, for all! On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Those marriages in San Francisco are full of impracticalities (not the > least of which is that they're illegal), and the recent Massachusetts > ruling is another legal quagmire in the making. Is that still any reason > to draw the line at this woman? I don't see any principle under which she *shouldn't*, but I don't see any principled reason for the government to recognize marriages at all -- I see some traditional and religious reasons, and some practical ones. What there IS a principled reason for is for the government to offer the same marriage options to everyone. The distinction between gay marriage and poly marriage is that the lack of gay marriage is -- in the opinion of many, including me -- a contradiction within existing law, a case where the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment isn't currently being satisfied. The nonexistence of legal recognition for poly marriages, on the other hand, is a place where the legal system seems consistent, but, some would say, doesn't live up to the abstract principle of personal freedom as well as it could. It may change. Anyway -- did I already ask this? -- why do you need a reason for this? If you agree with your friend that it should be legal for her to marry both of her partners, then great; if you don't agree, presumably you already have reasons. a ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:17:18 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] The Grey Album (ns) On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:33:15 -0500, "Dave Walker" said: > Any Fabs fans have any opinions on The Grey Album? > > ( http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html ) > > I think it works better than it has any right to. Parts of it > (eg. "Public Service Announcement", "December 4th") > are almost touching. I've heard only the track Matthew from Fluxblog posted a while back ("Change Clothes"), and I don't know the Jay-Z record so I know I'm missing half the picture - but it's a pretty cool idea. The ethical and legal issues are pretty interesting, too. Here's an article questioning whether EMI has the rights it claims it has in issuing its cease-and-desist order: . The Grey Tuesday protest site argues that sampling ought to be covered under "compulsory licensing" , similar to the way broadcast rights work. Before I'd read that, I came to a similar conclusion: I compared it to the way cover versions are permitted, so long as (a) in a live setting, the venue pays publishers a licensing fee through organizations like BMI or ASCAP, or (b) in a recording, credit is given and royalties paid to the copyright holders. (Actual lawyers here should correct me if I've misrepresented the way these things work.) Samples should be allowed in the same way, with some guidelines for how much material is sampled and how prominent it is. I mean, a lame-ass sampling like that underlaying "Ice Ice Baby" would essentially make the song equivalent to a cover of Bowie & Queen's "Under Pressure" - but a clever reworking of numerous samples (most of which, then, are less readily identifiable) would both allow credit where due and, if the fee structure is properly worked out, not create an unreasonable financial burden on the creator nor deprive the sample's source of a reasonable amount of income given the sample's use (i.e., two milliseconds of Hendrix feedback buried deep beneath a bunch of other instruments would cost virtually nothing, even though credit would still be given in print). - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: crumple zones:: :: harmful or fatal if swallowed :: :: small-craft warning :: ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:44:24 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: [loud-fans] the man in the grey vinyl lawsuit One more note on the Grey Album thing: it seems that no one ever actually asked permission of EMI or anyone else to use the Beatles material. While precedent suggests the answer would have been "no," and the argument I mentioned earlier does suggest that, legally, EMI at least has no particular rights to it, I kind of wish someone had asked...if only so they could definitely say that "no" was the real answer, not just the hypothetical one. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree :: what they are made of, where they come from, or how often :: they should appear. :: --Lemony Snicket ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:17:43 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] a question about marital law I know little about marital law, but this discussion has made me curious. What happens if a polygamous family from another country where polygamy is legal, moves to the US and wants to become US citizens? Are all the unions rendered unrecognized, illegal, or does the family have to choose one pair of spouses to be the legally recognized ones with the others then disallowed? Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #61 ******************************